Take my exemption, but not all at once

My graduate association has brought to my attention that postdoctoral fellowships will be taxed beginning this year if the Budget passes in its current form. I read the relevant section and happen to agree with Flaherty's assessment.

The tax exemptions for grad stipends (like mine) are excellent because we study to get a qualification and the stipends would be, realistically speaking, quite small if the tax was applied. 

A postdoctoral fellowship is a larger paycheck, and the Government is creating 75,000 dollar whoppers to boot. Moreover, one is training for a faculty position which will earn not only a higher salary, but eventual tenure and lots of access to NSERC funding.

So there's nothing wrong with bringing postdoctoral money into the tax system. But is such an abrupt change the best way to address the issue?

If from one day to another you were whammed with a 20% tax you wouldn't be happy, never mind having to scrap plenty of plans. With a mortgage to pay or a child coming up, the situation becomes serious.

I would much rather the tax was introduced gradually over three years. Postdocs would pay 11% of the full rate in the 2010 fiscal year, 33% in 2011 and 100% in 2012. This way contingency plans can be made or an alternative, more lucrative career sought. Otherwise we are disgruntling a potential pool of non-liberal professors, which is a bit of a waste methinks.

Why Brits should invest in Canada

The British financial world is in shock after yesterday's Budget, which hikes all taxes and creates yet another tax bracket of 50%. If you earn more than GBP 150k annually (CAD 300k or thereabouts) half of that will go to Gordon Brown. Then you'll pay enormous council tax (on your flat or house), 17% sales tax, GBP 180 for a TV license, et cetera.

150k earners are not low-skilled labor who are employed by manufacturing industries. They are, for instance, managers or financial sector employees. Managers can simply pack it in while financial services can be delivered from your laptop whether you are in a City office or on a Grand Cayman beach. I think you can see where this is going.

Nobody in their right mind will pay 50% of their income off as tax. Alistair Darling has just signed a death sentence for British economic recovery. Canadian tax on that bracket is approximately 29% and Investor/Entrepreneur immigration streams are wide open.

The Investor stream requires one to make a CAD 400k investment (managed by CIC) that will be repaid without interest five years later. Assuming a 5% annual return the gross cost of immigrating to Canada is CAD 110k, or 22k annually. British taxes would have take that from you in two months. Without knowing it, Alistair Darling might just have delivered a massive stimulus to the Canadian economy.

Oh, pleeeeease!

Canadian Centre for Policy Obviousness: tax cuts impact quality of life. Duh!

The research lauds public spending, income redistribution and big government. Most of the commenters embrace the cause of the righteous "poor" against the greedy "rich". I can just see the massive gov't-o-gasm sweeping the left-minded in the nation.

I cry "crock!". Public education, public healthcare, public infrastructure building and merit goods are welcome in my books, as long as they are properly administered and I get value for money. Hiring five managers for every medical staff in the national health system will impact my quality of life negatively while increasing taxes. A tax cut that will force the firing of 90% of managing positions will increase my quality of life because I will have more money and a more streamlined health service.

I want public services of a value equivalent to my tax. Cutting taxes isn't about taking and giving, it's about making public services more efficient. Do we need ten managers for a library? Obviously no, and firing them to save money because of a tax cut isn't going to make my life any worse.

Assuming economics is a zero-sum game is childish. But then, tax advocates are just that: children who cry "Mommy", and mama is in Ottawa.

Bill C-10 should have more balls!

Bill C-10 is to be a confidence issue, and sure as sunshine leftie film industry pressure will not be sufficient to grow the right attributes on Stephane Dion that'd make him vote the bill down. But C-10 doesn't go far enough.

I've seen my fair share of great classics and utter crap films. If you've watched Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point" you know what I mean by boring crap. Non-boring but utterly useless crap is epitomized in the latest "Rambo". But let's remain on topic.

The argument that Canadian film-making is mostly independent and thus dependent (oops) on government funding may well be correct. Comparing Bill C-10 to censorship is, however, wrong. Independent creative expression frequently has the task of provoking, challenging, questioning current lines of thought and current boundaries, including decency boundaries. How is a government supposed to discern between what's acceptable and what's not? Why, furthermore, should the government use its coffers to subsidize what's plainly not in its mandate? If the people wanted provocation and challenges they'd elect anyone BUT an incrementalist Tory.

Perks for film-making should be scrapped altogether. The evolution of thought and perception have no place in a Government's portfolio; its course should be left for the people themselves to decide. Whatever you're filming, if it's good someone will see the opportunity and finance it. This would further encourage independent directors to explore topics that actually appeal to the public or are likely to generate elevated interest. With a private source of finance the director will find not only a moneybag but also a fervent promoter of the movie (he will want to make money!). Where's the trouble?

Independent film-makers should cherish bill C-10 because it cuts into the interests of the great production industries, who have for too long relied on cheap and superficial effects and contents to provide us with dumb movies good only for pizza-and-beer communal procrastination.